10 November 2011, Cambridge, MA—At 10:30 pm on Wednesday, November 9, hundreds of Harvard students and affiliates put down tents to begin an occupation of Harvard Yard. Currently, thirty tents occupy the Yard in solidarity with the global Occupy movement. Earlier Wednesday, around 800 Harvard students, faculty, staff, and community members gathered in a rally, general assembly, and march to Occupy Harvard. Harvard is a diverse community that includes both the 1% and the 99%; we occupy here in solidarity with the global Occupy movement and with Occupy Boston.

We are Occupy Harvard. We want a university for the 99%, not a corporation for the 1%.

We are here in solidarity with the Occupy movement to protest the corporatization of higher education, epitomized by Harvard University.

We see injustice in the 180:1 ratio between the compensation of Harvard’s highest-paid employee—the head of internal investments at Harvard Management Company—and the lowest-paid employee, an entry-level custodial worker. We see injustice in Harvard’s adoption of corporate efficiency measures such as job outsourcing. We see injustice in African land grabs that displace local farmers and devastate the environment. We see injustice in Harvard’s investment in private equity firms such as HEI Hotels and Resorts, which profits off the backbreaking labor of a non-union immigrant workforce. We see injustice in Harvard’s lack of financial transparency and its prevention of student and community voice in these investments.

We stand in solidarity with Occupy Boston and the other occupations throughout the country. We stand in solidarity with students at other universities who suffer crushing debt burdens and insufficient resources. We stand in solidarity with the students who occupied Massachusetts Hall one decade ago, and we continue their pursuit of justice for workers. We stand in solidarity with all those in Boston and beyond who clamor for equity. We are the 99%.

A university for the 99% must settle a just contract with Harvard’s custodial workers. A university for the 99% must adopt a new transparency policy, including disclosure of Harvard’s current investments as well as a commitment to not reinvest in HEI Hotels & Resorts or in land-grabbing hedge funds like Emergent Asset Management. Further,

A university for the 99% would offer academic opportunities to assess responses to socioeconomic inequality outside the scope of mainstream economics.

A university for the 99% would implement debt relief for students who suffer from excessive loan burdens.

A university for the 99% would commit to increasing the diversity of Harvard’s graduate school faculty and students.

A university for the 99% would end the privilege enjoyed by legacies in the Harvard admissions process.

A university for the 99% would implement a policy requiring faculty to declare conflicts of interest.

Our statement of principles is subject to change by the Occupy Harvard General Assemblies.

I don’t think ANY of the Occupiers in the Yard are bitching about how bad they have it as Harvard students. Even those of us who got in based on merit and the generosity of financial aid fully understand that because of the school we’re lucky enough to attend, we have a huge advantage in terms of finding work above minimum wage. We know we have it easier than others. That doesn’t mean we don’t give a fuck.

Our statement is NOT ABOUT US. It’s about the institution we attend which, while generous in allowing people like me to get a leg-up in life, still perpetuates the system of financial and social inequality that plagues our entire nation. We produce the brokers and government officials and bankers and investors who squeeze every drop of money out of the 99%. We pamper our students and alumni while fucking our employed staff (custodians, food service workers, etc.) over at every angle. We claim to be open to anyone who works hard enough but STILL let the rich stay rich and successful by favoring students whose families have been wealthy for generations.

You think the fact that we’re the lucky ones means that we have no right to fight for inequality? ESPECIALLY considering the fact that, by virtue of our presence at Harvard, have the power to show that we fortunate students of the Ivy League and ostensible “future leaders” of America are just as fed up with the way this government and society operates? If you care about the strength of this movement, I suggest you accept solidarity wherever it is offered and LISTEN to the people who are joining it instead of dismissing them based on your stereotypes of who we are and what we think.

I hope they will consider having a broader and more radical vision and start seeing Harvard as part of a systemic problem in our winner take all society. The statement is good as it stands but very narrow and milquetoast. It would be wonder if the Harvard students *really* radicalized. Opening up Harvard to more people is not ultimately a solution. A solution will be when being from Harvard is not such a huge economic and political and social advantage because the society has become much more equal in all those domains.

But it’s good to start somewhere. It’s good to start with an internal critique of Harvard. Even better to have a broader vision of society and the role in the plutocracy that Harvard plays. Letting in people to Harvard is not going to mean that much when the top echelon has such a huge slice of the pie. In fact, it simply fuels the lottery mentality that plagues this society and gives an illusion of fairness that comforts the upper class and lets the lower class believe that their position must also be deserved–if only they’d been smarter, they too would have gotten into some elite school.

Yes, you, Joe from the working class–you too can have a .000001% chance of going to Harvard! This motif has been used to justify inequality for far too long. Joe from the working class will simply move up and occupy his upper rung after graduation. This doesn’t promote real change.

Believe me, this is not a criticism of Harvard students or even of Harvard itself. It’s only meant to point out that Harvard is a part of a systemic problem–right in the middle of it, in fact. There was a bit more mobility when state universities had not had their funding cut, when there were good jobs for those without BAs and so on. Even then, there was substantial inequality. And of course, universities of all types have fueled not only corporate power but the military industrial complex for many decades. If you look at the ties between the university and the military, that will be an eye opener itself.

The meritocracy is ultimately a bit of a scam in the first place. I know that many Harvard students are aware of this and it will be interesting to see if they (or at least some of them) move into a political place that challenges the system more deeply than this statement suggests. This would mean rejecting one’s own privilege, which is hard to do–but some people have certainly done it.

Never heard of Harvard Management Corporation – I wonder if it replaced Harvard Management Company?

I presume all those students occupying Harvard were held at gunpoint and forced to enroll at Harvard, thus becoming slaves to the burdensome student debt that ensues? If not, it seems highly ironic that they are protesting the school that they chose to attend (and are free to transfer from at any time).

Most people at harvard won’t have student debt because of scholarships, grants, other funds, or because they have money.

Secondly, your use of irony is incorrect. In fact, your usage of irony is “highly ironic.” You have a wholesale misunderstanding of the facts and general vocabulary, while professing an intimate understanding. That is what irony is. You are ironic.

I would recommend you take some time to think to yourself why you have this visceral reaction towards a movement that is striving for equality for everybody from every spectrum. You should also take some time to learn about what the movement is about if you don’t know already, and then you may understand the importance of solidarity from the students at a university like Harvard. You’re either for rising income inequality or against it. If you are, you best Occupy.

Harvard has a long history for protesting that they should be proud of. The students have the right to Occupy Harvard when they see injustice in the world and the school should support them.

In the last ten years I have seen Harvard move towards conservative values and that is more frightening than anything. The smartest people in the room should be working FOR the greater good and not against it.

Rather than focusing on the negatives (above), you should demand that Harvard use it’s influence (which is considerable) to support the #Occupy movement around the U.S., censor Wall Street, reshape the House and Senate.

Don’t just make statements. You are Harvard and you are involved. Insist Harvard get involved – publicly – get behind the 99% and work to end income inequality.

Use Harvard. Use and appreciate its power. Don’t scorn and belittle it.

So people with privilege cannot engage in moral action on the behalf of people who are less privileged than them? They cannot see a world around them in shambles and themselves use the tools of privilege at their disposal to try and enact change? Well then I guess all white males in this movement had better resign themselves to a life on Wall St, or else live a life of shameless inauthenticity.

The right to rebel is a HUMAN right, and rebellion is a HUMAN condition. It doesn’t matter what your class position is as long as you’re honest about it. If these people are our “future leaders” and our “best and brightest”, why WOULDN’T we want them on the side of social justice? It’s precisely Harvard that produces the language and justifications of the systems of knowledge which perpetuate inequality, and your response to those within Harvard trying to introduce a moral, social consciousness into that institution amounts to saying, “How dare they!”???

And keep in mind there is a real dichotomy within Harvard between students from wealth whose parents pay their tuition, and those who are underprivileged but talented and receive the large amounts of financial aid Harvard gives out.

As a Harvard graduate with burdensome school loans- can you please articulate for us your stance on
“•A university for the 99% would implement debt relief for students who suffer from excessive loan burdens.”

We all recognize that school’s aren’t cheap, but clearly some choices are cheaper than others. Part of that difference is that when you graduate with the Harvard crest vs. the Umass crest- it means something- no? Else why go to Harvard?

What’s an excessive loan burden? I’m struggling the most with this segment of the OWS movement.

Do I think the US charging for universities that offer a sub-par education in relation to other nations is a good thing? No! of course not. But frankly- this is Harvard.
How is a student, who takes on these loans ( to essentially try to ‘better themselves’ or put themselves in position to compete for the jobs they want (and will get most likely vs. state school grads))
going to justify they need relief from these debt obligations?

If you can please try to do this from a ‘general’ point of view- rather than your specific story- that would be great, Thanks.

I cannot speak for Occupy Boston or Occupy Harvard, but I can speak for myself, personally.

I had a full scholarship for both my last three years of undergrad at the University of West Georgia and all three years of my master’s at Harvard Divinity School. My loans were for living expenses. Harvard require full-time residency, and it’s impossible to be a full-time Harvard graduate student and work enough to support oneself. So, that’s my situation.

From a broader perspective, tuition costs in the United States have risen by 650 points above inflation over the past 30 years while the real value of a degree (in terms of increased income) has steadily declined. Meanwhile, federal student loan debt cannot be forgiven in bankruptcy, cannot be refinanced, cannot be written off as a business investment, and can have usurious interest rates. (Some of my federal student loans are at 7% APR. That’s lower than a credit card, but much higher than, say, current mortgage rates.

Finally, I have $60 thousand in student debt, a degree from the most prestigious university in the world, and I’m living of of low-pay, no-benefit office temp work. I spoke with a Boston Globe reporter earlier today who went to Columbia but just got his first full-time job at 35. And he doesn’t even get paid vacations. My point in saying this is that a university education simply isn’t the entrée into the middle class that it once was. My generation was told by our parents, our teachers, our guidance counselors, and our mentors that if we stayed in school, worked hard, and kept out of trouble we could make something of ourselves. (Let me repeat that: make something of ourselves, not have something handed to us.) That’s turned out to not actually be true for many, many people. Tricking naïve young people into taking a bad bet that’ll saddle them with the most collectable form of debt for most of their life just doesn’t seem that honest to me. Call me old-fashioned.

From a broader perspective, tuition costs in the United States have risen by 650 points above inflation over the past 30 years while the real value of a degree (in terms of increased income) has steadily declined.”

“Meanwhile, federal student loan debt cannot be forgiven in bankruptcy, cannot be refinanced, cannot be written off as a business investment, and can have usurious interest rates. (Some of my federal student loans are at 7% APR. That’s lower than a credit card, but much higher than, say, current mortgage rates.”

You knew all of this going in. 7% is no usury!

“My point in saying this is that a university education simply isn’t the entrée into the middle class that it once was.”

“My generation was told by our parents, our teachers, our guidance counselors, and our mentors that if we stayed in school, worked hard, and kept out of trouble we could make something of ourselves.”

Your parents lied to you, I’m sorry. Your assumption bothers me more than any other. A college degree was never a ticket into the middle class. It is simply a tool used to get into the middle class, a tool to help further your opportunities. My parents told me almost the same thing: “stay in school, work hard, keep out of trouble, and you’ll HAVE A CHANCE TO SUCCEED.” You say you don’t want a handout but then say you were somehow tricked into debt and you’re pissed you’re not getting the pay you deserve?

I took some time off, went back to STATE school here in MA, where tuition is actually affordable. I graduated at then end of the summer. I’ve been on many interviews and am being called back for second rounds. I will get a job, there is no doubt about that, at a decent rate with decent benefits and upward mobility, should I prove myself. I work full time at my soon to be old job while doing this. I realize this is because of my hard work in school, but that degree hanging on my wall doesn’t mean crap, I still have to work my ass off to make it even further. It’s simply a tool. Maybe you spent too much time occupying and too little time looking for gainful employment.

you went to HDS at a time when religion was being run away from by the majority of the country. you studied to get a degree in something that has no real application to the workforce of the USA. you decided to take on that debt and pursue a degree with very limited job prospects…. and now you want the rest of us to pay off YOUR debt? what the fuck is the matter with you people? and that globe reporter, he got hurt by the downturn in paper production and the upturn in technology…first full time job at 35, that means he graduated ~13 years ago, right around the time that the tech bubble was surging… why did he get a degree in journalism? you fucking people baffle me, spend all this money and time on something that has no prospects in the world. and you especially Eaton, dumb charge after dumb charge… let me say this one last time: NO ONE FORCED YOU TO STUDY AT HDS, NO ONE FORCED YOU TO TAKE ON THOSE LOANS AND NO ONE ELSE IS GOING TO PAY THEM BACK FOR YOU!

I understand that it’s difficult to speak for a larger majority- thanks for the thoughts on the situation. I guess my responses (different from the other guy) would be

1- Impossible to be full-time graduate student and work enough to support oneself-
support fully? probably not- but i’ve known dozens of grad students who have been able achieve this goal. Living in borderline squalid conditions eating ramen noodles in somerville/ western MA, brutal sections of NYC etc. Usually those friends go ‘off the radar’ during these years, because frankly- they don’t have any money to do ‘stuff’.

2- Value of degrees declining- yes and no in my opinion. Is the Harvard degree worth as much as it was relative to other degrees as in the past? No. Is it still worth considerably more than the average degree out there? Yes.

3- Student loan forgiveness- ‘cannot be refinanced’ – you can certainly refinance FFELP loans to DLP loans- from there I’m not exactly sure TBH.
Loans are what they are- they offer you cash you don’t have for future payment at a certain rate. Once you sign the contract- you’re obligated. Perhaps we should educate younger (high school age) students what the true value of these contracts really is? Not dissimilar to the person who bought too much home- some students probably shouldn’t take as big a loan for school. Personally- I know I went to a state school because I never thought i’d be able to pay back the kind of money that ‘better’ schools commanded.

4- What happens after you earn your degree certainly isn’t just a magical ride. Life takes twists and turns. Would I rather be an unemployed Harvard grad in a recession in 2011 than one with a Umass degree? Um……yes. Many, MANY friends of mine didn’t get their first job within their ‘career goals’ right out of school- even in the mid 90’s when the job environment was clearly far better. But they stepped ‘down’ to get something while they worked on trying to finally get an ‘in’ for what they hopeed would ultimately be a career path.
Some never left that alternate job- and actually wound up loving it (I’m one of them), Some worked (anything from waiting tables to coffee shops and Staples/Verizon etc) until they finally got into their more specified fields of choice.

5- ‘we stayed in school, worked hard, and kept out of trouble we could make something of ourselves’ Tricking naive young people? This is where I draw a blank in my understanding.
The dynamic has clearly changed- you used to need an undergraduate degree to ‘get somewhere’, kids these days need a Graduate degree to ‘get somewhere’

Sometimes you need to take a step back before you can take a step forward. I know for me it was COMPLETELY frustrating to graduate with no experience in my field, and have that as the sole impediment for me getting almost any ‘good job’ within that field.

The frustrating part for those of us that have successfully navigated through the life cycle of school>student loans>creditcard debt>carpayments and in some cases now the biggest loan yet- a mortagage, is that we never heard people complain about those obligations being unfair. We complained about having them because it was difficult. Very difficult.
I knew some, but not many kids who I went to highschool with who never went to college. My oldest siblings had a far greater number of students in their grades not go on to college. How many kids don’t at least try to go to school now? I don’t know the answer, but it’s less. It’s more competitive. Far more competitive.

Maybe this squeeze in jobs for the ‘educated’ youth will cause more to learn skilled trades? Maybe not- but I know that only one person can really , truly improve your quality of life- and thats you (or the individual), and that sometimes means taking a step back before you step forward.

“Tricking naive young people? This is where I draw a blank in my understanding.
The dynamic has clearly changed- you used to need an undergraduate degree to ‘get somewhere’, kids these days need a Graduate degree to ‘get somewhere’
Sometimes you need to take a step back before you can take a step forward.”

So your solution is to go to grad school and take out more loans? Ok, cool idea.

ok, well, i guess i’ll never get anywhere since i can’t afford a graduate degree and don’t want to take out loans, and if i do get a grad degree i’ll probably be screwed too. good point, there’s nothing to protest here.

But that is in fact what is wrong with the money for education system. Education should be entirely based on ability. Currently extremely high calibre students are wasted because they never even think of pursuing their talent simply because of the cost/risk involved. In the end the country loses out because some of our best are missing due to being poor and only because they are poor.

Harvard may be the 1%, but these students are protesting for all of you. You should be thankful they are doing so. Warren Buffett is also the 1% (in fact, he’s the 0.00000066%), but that doesn’t invalidate his support for the working every day people in this country.

@Accountability, The trouble is that people take it for granted that Harvard graduates (or any tier 1 school for that matter) will find a high-paying job when they graduate.

First, some people want to give back to the world and maybe not be a hedge fund manager- this also includes graduate students in the Divinity School, as well as scientists (whose work is appropriated, earning corporations billions while they take home their $60k), social workers, and all manner of people who aim to actually improve this world.

Second, you assume that there is a high-paying job to be had for every graduate who wants one. Fact is, unemployment amongst college grads has tripled since 2007. With our government crumbling against the pressure of massive debt, another bailout is not imminent, and the free market may claim yet more casualties in the financial and other high-paying sectors.

Further, while no one was held at gunpoint and forced to enroll at Harvard, all students are placing a bet. they bet that the Harvard name will give them the edge they need to land one of the few coveted jobs available. This is weighed against having less of a financial burden at graduation, with only your skills to fall back on (and let’s face it, there are only few jobs where skill is what gets you in the door). Then again, maybe an 18 year-old is not thinking of the pros and cons of school rankings v. debt, only that they’ve been told all their life that Harvard is the pinnacle of achievement and that to refuse admission would be insane.

I don’t want to live in a society where 180 to 1 is acceptable. Some work is harder, some work takes special talents, the labor market indeed determines who gets what job, but the inequality is just way too huge. It is no longer about talent or how hard you work at 180 to 1. It’s about the connections and privileges you have, and it’s about your willingness to put aside moral value in order to maximize profits for your shareholders or company. The irony of the system as it stands now is that people willing to act anti-socially are rewarded. I was talking with an executive the other day on the sidewalk at Occupy Boston. I respect him highly for having the courage to stop, and I talked with him very respectfully. However, he said that he doesn’t want to feel guilty for making the choice to send jobs to China to increase profit for his shareholders. Well, my answer was that I don’t want him to have to face that choice! I want a world where the facts that we need jobs here in this country, and the fact that labor standards are poor in China, actually get figured into the equation.

Sage – what is the correct ratio then? 1 to 1? 2 to 1? What is an executive who is on the road 285 days a year, working 16 hour days (including most weekends), and on call 24/7 worth compared to an 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, 48 weeks per year entry level employee (custodian, receptionist, etc.)? While I am not going to pretend to have the answer, it seems like the ratio should be “significant” to “1.”

Fair question. I don’t know. I just know that U.S. executive pay is off the scale, and it’s ridiculous and distorting to any sense of actual productive economy to have people who spend $70,000 per year on restaurants alone, and $25,000 per month on their mortgages, while other people in the same town are homeless, and some people work two jobs for $10 per hour. I don’t want to regulate pay scales, but I do want to put tight limits on “money making money” because money actually *makes* nothing itself. I don’t pretend to have the answer, either, but I know that better ways are possible. I would like to join you and everyone else in finding the better ways, but first we must make this a real democracy, so that we have the ability to make the million small changes on the path to a world with greater equality of opportunity, and where real work is valued more than gambling with other people’s money.

Sorry, I just had to reply to this even though the questions is addressed to Sage, I hope you don’t mind. The CEOs I know don’t work the crazy hours you mentioned at all yet they rake in the obscene amount of money.

It’s really not about how hard one works. I’ve been in the business world most of my life and I speak from experience.

There are still full time jobs that offer 4 weeks vacation? Awesome, I’ll take one. If there are no more available I’d be more than happy to be take the imaginary job where I make millions as an executive who never takes a second off from working. And definitely not the entire month of August.

Much of our manufacturing and heavy industry left a long time ago and it’s not – repeat NOT – coming back.

The question, it seems to me, is how do we get the service economy we now live in to generate the kind of middle class wealth that the manufacturing economy used to?

We may be able to figure it out, but it took generations to get ourselves into this hole and, realistically, it’s going to take generations to climb back out. Anyone who thinks that one election, or anything else that our 24 hour news cycle can focus on is going to solve our problems, is in for crushing disappointment.

Cultural change and paradigm shifts are needed, and those are a long time in coming. The Occupy movements are a good start.

Paul, I respect that, though I believe that our manufacturing industries will come back. One factor will be that global inequality is getting smaller, so the cost of shipping goods around the world to reap the profits from cheaper labor will get smaller. Fuel costs also going up.

We need to factor into the market the “externalities” (so called) so that the REAL cost of shipping goods around the world is figured into the economic decisions, as well as the REAL costs of globalizing production while NOT globalizing the movement of labor. If we were to figure in the real cost to the world of making cheap products in China and selling them in the U.S. then we’d naturally make more things in the U.S. again. This would re-grow our economy, and we’d be able to stand up straight again with dignity, knowing that we can buy an American-made plow or car or computer. This may take the form of tariffs (not protectionism, but fairness in terms of labor standards). This should be the decision of the people of this country, not the decision of well-lobbied senators. If we take the influence of the powerful wealthy elite out of the decision-making, then we would come to different decisions. I support “free trade” but only if it’s combined with free movement of labor. Otherwise, the outcome is predetermined, and it is not good for the average person.

I spent 6 months lobbying one Congressman to vote against the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas), and I won — he voted against it due to the huge electoral pressure I place on him (petitions, labor union statements, letters from economics professors, etc) but then he turned around one month later and passed it with minor changes to the language. Probably as a result of corporate lobbying. My sincere efforts as his constituent amounted to nothing in the long run, because of the influence of money in politics. That is what the Occupy movement is against, in the very heart of the matter.

Why do so many people have a problem with college students protesting? They’re risking suspension and other punishment — they COULD choose to do nothing at all, just see the problems of the world and keep quiet.

Is that what people prefer? Is that the kind of citizen we want in this country?!

Congratulations to students — and ANYONE — brave enough to speak up in this world. Rather than try to shut them up, why not join them?

You shouldn’t be protesting unless you are the poorest person currently alive. Don’t get so poor you become homeless though, because then you’re obviously crazy and you aren’t allowed to protest anything either.

Enrollment in Harvard University does not require that you (a) surrender your concern for classes of society you are no longer a part of or (b) blindly serve the interests of the the institution that is granting you excessive privilege. OccupyHarvard is useful precisely because these students are using their privilege to increase the privilege and visibility of others who are not given the opportunities we have been granted.

Being privileged does not bar an individual from the right to care about social justice issues. If you insist on labeling these Harvard students hypocrites because they care about people other than themselves, I would love to hear you explain why male feminists, white abolitionists, and straight gay-rights activists are useless and hypocritical as well.

I guess I would expect at least half way decent analogies from a Harvard undergrad.

Which of those groups you listed is ‘privileged ‘ or “elite” within their greater populous.
I don’t use the word hypocrItical as much as I find it humorous that some of the foundations of the OH movement fly in the face of what it means to go to an über elite university and what that piece of paper you’re shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars stands for when you graduate.

I’m all for social justice- but Harvard (1%) instead of joining the 99, has now drawn this attention to itself for the betterment of what exactly? It’s own university

Think globally and act locally is a great thought, but you simply must open your eyes to how the rest of Boston, OWS, and the outside world must view this.

Why didn’t the Harvard students get the idea to protest the 180:1 before OWS? Was it less unjust back then?
Shouldn’t Harvard be filled with leaders?

“re: Why didn’t the Harvard students get the idea to protest the 180:1 before OWS? Was it less unjust back then?”

Harvard Students have been for a very long time been working with workers’ unions to protest for better livable wages. Even before OWS started, they have held demonstrations against the income disparity.

OWS is allowing disparate groups a wider umbrella through which to campaign, leading to solidarity and increased efficacy (or so we hope). There is nothing wrong with this.

I visited the tent city in Harvard Yard today (( i can get in because I work here and have an ID )) and saw amazing conversations spring up between students, workers, and passers-by. I think the very presence of the Occupy movement in the Yard is significant symbolism, as well as a sand in the oyster, a pebble in the shoe, that will make some difference. The fact the Occupy has spread to the institution of the 1% means something significant.

“We are here in solidarity with the Occupy movement to protest the corporatization of higher education,epitomized by Harvard University”.
This is pretty significant. Student loan debt is somewhere in the $500 billion to 1 trillion range. Tuition rates are increasing. Why? Universities are private businesses intended to make money and are relatively insulated from economic fluctuations (When times are good people go to school. When people don’t see hope in the workplace they go back to school). What’s stopping them from trying to grab as much money as possible? Some kind of ethical standard? Please! I personally owe over $20,000. I’ve been paying for over 10 years and have 19 years to go. When I look at how much I’ve paid in interest it makes me sick. I’m in favor of a drop dead date for paying student loans (a specific date selected for people to stop paying school loans unless some major changes are made by colleges and related creditors). It wouldn’t even take very many people to make this a huge financial statement. If this could happen anywhere in the U.S. Boston would be the place.

Regular people can’t get in but they still call this Harvard thing part of the 99% and part of the Occupy movement? Its like they’re all hallucinating of something. These requests for loan amnesty would need to be part of a broader program of payments that will seem fair to a broader group of people. I think the best thing to do is come out for cutting the taxes of the working class and middle class. Even the corrupted Tea Party at least did that. I think we could agree with the Tea Party to cut the taxes of the working class and middle class and leave the problem of whether to tax the rich or gut government spending or borrow or default for another time. And I can’t ever get a college loan because I throughout my youth refused to register for the draft to prepare to fight on the side of Osama Bin Laden and the Islamists of Afganistan and kill Russians and back in the 1980s. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bANlOGu47CI

I refused to register. This has nothing to do with getting drafted. Draft avoiders will register and then just not go. I suffered by not ever getting to go to college and I can never get a government job.

If Mittleman’s salary as quoted in the Crimson is the figure we’re putting at the 180 in the ratio of 180:1, then that’s $18 million. 18,000,000 / 180 = 100,000. It seems unlikely that an entry-level custodian is making $100K/year and if they are then the disparity is not so much the issue (as $100K is more than enough for anyone to live on), but rather that Harvard is paying too much for a particular service. Was this ratio supposed to be 1800:1, or what?

And what do we know about the current state of affairs at HMC? With Mittleman gone, has there been any kind of compensation reform, especially given the fact that he left in the wake of the controversy surrounding his excessive pay? Who holds his job now? How much does the current Domestic bond-fund manager make? For that matter, how much does an entry-level custodian make at Harvard? What are their benefits like?

I’m not asking these questions to be divisive or to claim that Harvard isn’t part of the problem with wealth and power disparity. I’m asking because these seem like important pieces of information to have if we’re to evaluate what kind of progress the University has or hasn’t made, and perhaps useful information in framing a clear set of expectations for progress right now.

These particular Harvard students see that a person is paid $18 million and presume that this is not because the regime at Harvard perceives that it is worth that much to hire this person versus a less expensive person but due to this person being favored by the regime at Harvard knowing others that charge less would do just as good a job. These students inhabit a world where no actual wealth is created. And I bet if you investigate what they are majoring in they are for the most part not being educated to create any actual wealth but will need to be placed in a job created by or heavily subsidized by the state socialist political structure. Everything for them is politics and who you know and how to curry favor. That is how they got where they are. To them the struggle to gain wealth is not the struggle to create actual new wealth but a political struggle to cause the government to seize and disburse wealth.

It wouldn’t be a good debate about wealth disparity without a healthy dollop of anti-intellectualism. All those miserable teachers, professors and academics leeching off the suffering sweat of the industrialist’s brow via their wicked consumption of Federal loan and grant money. When will the suffering of the elites cease?

I did use the term “seize” for taxation which implies that taxation is bad. I would rather that I had not done that. I do not want to make any value judgments here about whether taxing is good or bad. Other than that my post is assertions of fact about the Occupy Harvard situation. I do think the Occupy movement should think about coming out for ending the tax on the working class and middle class. Look what I found about the distribution income tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Distribution It does make it look that they are already not taxed much. But they leave out the 15% social security tax, tying health insurance to payroll deductions and probably other things I am missing? And maybe the fact that the statistics are for individuals and not families makes it misleading.

[…] what you will about the methods and the constituency of the protests, but their claims are very legitimate. Pay the janitors a living wage like they’ve been demanding for ten years. Stop investing in […]